AV has shown that he can be a great coach for a young and/or rebuilding team. I think that's where he shines as a coach. He was a successful fringe player who had to think the game to overcome his physical limitations, and those lessons help him coach less mature players and help them develop.

As the head of a mature, reportedly well-knit and internally leader-ed, team I'm not sure what he can contribute to bring the team over the top.

Taking a successful team through the darkest hours seems like it takes a different mindset.

1. Let's see, the club is making a 100 million dollar a year profit. Where did I put that contract extension?

or

2. Let's see.....wait...I don't see it....the frickin Stanley Cup!! I'm going to extend your contract this time, and give you anything you need, but if you don't win the cup, you're going to need to be wearing one at our next evaluation meeting.

“The Canucks have been fantastically successful, as a team and business. Purchased in 2006 along with Rogers Arena from Seattle’s John McCaw for a couple of instalments totalling $250-million, the value of Canucks Sports and Entertainment has probably doubled under the Aquilinis.
The strength of their ownership since they hired Gillis in 2008 to replace Dave Nonis, the general manager they had inherited from McCaw, is their absolute trust in their hand-picked man to make hockey decisions and the Aquilinis’ willingness to fund them.
The result is a team that has averaged 50 wins and 108 points the last four seasons while producing top-five NHL revenue and, likely, profits in excess of $100 million.”

I think the figure of $100 million refers to the total (estimated) profit over 4 years, rather than $100 mil per year! Regardless, more than $25 mil in profit per year is a great return on their investment. And, remember, these figures are all just estimates from the journo. The real figure (profit-wise) is likely higher.

Orcasfan wrote:I think the figure of $100 million refers to the total (estimated) profit over 4 years, rather than $100 mil per year! Regardless, more than $25 mil in profit per year is a great return on their investment. And, remember, these figures are all just estimates from the journo. The real figure (profit-wise) is likely higher.

That is a very interesting point on the profits. I somewhat gave the owners the benefit of the doubt on how much they were losing heading in to the lockout, but the doubling of league revenues when the US TV numbers still haven't returned to pre-lockout levels. I never imagined the League would go from a $39 million cap to a $70 million cap in seven years under a revenue sharing model...and that's notwithstanding that many owner's profits are not "league profits", i.e. parking and some concessions and so on.

Orcasfan wrote:
That is a very interesting point on the profits. I somewhat gave the owners the benefit of the doubt on how much they were losing heading in to the lockout, but the doubling of league revenues when the US TV numbers still haven't returned to pre-lockout levels. I never imagined the League would go from a $39 million cap to a $70 million cap in seven years under a revenue sharing model...and that's notwithstanding that many owner's profits are not "league profits", i.e. parking and some concessions and so on.

Although revenues have gone up since 2004, some teams do better than others. Under the new CBA, the high revenue teams had their costs capped, thus earning even higher profits as revenues have risen. The low revenue teams have been forced to pay to the floor (which has gone up drastically) ensuring continuing losses. I'm not sure the revenue sharing scheme in the NHL really offets the losses suffered by many franchises. I'm glad the Canucks are one of the "have" teams...which means they can and do spend to thte cap every year.

Orcasfan wrote:I think the figure of $100 million refers to the total (estimated) profit over 4 years, rather than $100 mil per year! Regardless, more than $25 mil in profit per year is a great return on their investment. And, remember, these figures are all just estimates from the journo. The real figure (profit-wise) is likely higher.

That is a very interesting point on the profits. I somewhat gave the owners the benefit of the doubt on how much they were losing heading in to the lockout, but the doubling of league revenues when the US TV numbers still haven't returned to pre-lockout levels. I never imagined the League would go from a $39 million cap to a $70 million cap in seven years under a revenue sharing model...and that's notwithstanding that many owner's profits are not "league profits", i.e. parking and some concessions and so on.

Also the franchise value has increased dramatically (too lazy to look it up).